In the APSA Public Scholarship Program, graduate students in political science produce summaries of new research in the American Political Science Review. This piece, written by Karra McCray, covers the new article by Johanna Kantola, Anna Elomäki, Barbara Gaweda, Cherry Miller, Petra Ahrens, and Valentine Berthet, ““It’s Like Shouting to a Brick Wall”: Normative Whiteness and Racism in the European Parliament”.
Often, people shy away from calling racism what it is – a system that perpetuates a fake sense of superiority among those of dominant racial groups. Instead of acknowledging the existence of racism and the way it’s sustained, people point fingers and place blame on the “few bad apples.” But who’s to blame for how racism and whiteness infiltrate society, individuals who deflect from discussing it, institutions that deny that it occurs, or both of them?
The authors of the recently published APSR article aim to discover how European whiteness sustains racism in the European Parliament and how it affects efforts to confront racism and promote antiracist practices within the institution. Their framework centers on institutional racism, a form of racism embedded in the laws of an organization that upholds structures of power and privileges.
In their work, the authors find that three distinct strategies sustain whiteness: deflection, distancing, and denial. Those who deflect from racism focus on diversity and the number of racialized minorities they have within the organization. Typically, they focus on the allegations of racism, not the act itself. Individuals who distance themselves from racism see racism as an act unique to individuals and uncommon among the general population. Others deny that racism exists and proclaim that acts of discrimination are “not racism.”
To answer their proposed questions, the authors conducted 140 interviews with members of the European Parliament (MEP) and their staff, shadowed and observed the behavior of some MEPs, and analyzed political documents. The authors examine institutional and social practices to capture the dynamics of institutional racism. Their analysis is separated into three levels to explore the complexity of antiracist work within the institution. An individual level specifies how members engage or disengage with racism. Political groups consist of the second level. Groups are institutional power players with the power to respond to racism and antiracism. On a broader scale, the parliamentary level examines how the behavior of the European Parliament addresses racism as an institution.
“The majority of the political groups were not actively involved in trying to combat racism and did not prioritize advocating for antiracist policies.” An examination of all three levels reveals that individual racist practices that remain unchallenged combine at the institutional level, reinforcing deflection, distancing, and denial. For every level, deflection emphasizes language and praise for diversity, distancing turns the blame to other European institutions or far-right MEPs, and denial celebrates the Parliament for being non-racist. Most of the racism concerns raised within the Parliament arose because of racialized minority MEPs and staff. Others disregarded the practices and processes that reinforced racial hierarchies by praising what they believed to be positive examples of racism. During the interviews, some individuals revealed that the European Parliament was “color-blind” and didn’t see color or race but treated everyone equally. Others stated that the Parliament was reasonable compared to other European institutions – using more diverse visual images of women and racialized minorities and celebrating diversity. However, the most common type of diversity referenced centered on immigration status, not racial identity.
Normative whiteness manifests and continues to operate as an unchecked privilege in the Parliament because many don’t see it as an issue that should be a priority. The majority of the political groups were not actively involved in trying to combat racism and did not prioritize advocating for antiracist policies. Most antiracist work within the Parliament was delegated to a low-level informal group. Alternatively, many members and staff protected the Parliament’s image. In their opinion, racism is an individual issue best addressed by the broader public. If those with the necessary power and resources remain silent about racism and racial issues, the European Parliament will continue to exist only as an impression of equality.
- Karra McCray is a 3rd-year Ph.D. candidate at Brown University, with research subfields of American Politics and Political Theory. Her research examines ideological differences among members of race-based caucuses. Karra has worked with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies to co-author the 2018 Racial Diversity Among Top U.S. House Staff report and most recently, the Black Representation Among Commissioned Officers in the Biden White House. Karra holds a Masters’s in Black Politics from Howard University and a Bachelor’s in Political Science and English from the University of South Carolina.
- KANTOLA, JOHANNA, ANNA ELOMÄKI, BARBARA GAWEDA, CHERRY MILLER, PETRA AHRENS, and VALENTINE BERTHET. 2022. “‘It’s Like Shouting to a Brick Wall’: Normative Whiteness and Racism in the European Parliament.” American Political Science Review, 1–17
- About the APSA Public Scholarship Program.